Latest news with #RamMadhav
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
India has to grab opportunity in new world order: Ram Madhav
HYDERABAD: Stating that the new world order is taking shape, BJP leader and author Ram Madhav on Sunday said that India has to grab the opportunity to become more powerful. 'The new world order is taking shape. It doesn't mean America and Europe will disappear. They will be there to be powerful entities of the world, but not as powerful as they had been in the past. But there is an opportunity available for India. We have to grab this opportunity. We have to think about the big picture. We cannot always be stuck in only local issues,' he said. The BJP leader was addressing the gathering after his book 'The New World: 21st Century Global Order and India' was launched here in the presence of former Ambassador to Russia Venkatesh Varma and NALSAR Vice Chancellor Prof Srikrishna Deva Rao. 'Prime Minister Narendra Modi thinks about Viksit Bharat 2047. But what is that Viksit Bharat? How to reach there? What will be the world you see in 2047? We have to think seriously about all these factors and prepare the country. We can rise only with that kind of a big vision,' Ram Madhav said. Stating that a new cold war is on between China and the US, he said: 'During the Cold War that occurred between the USSR and Western powers, there were no other big powers in the world. Now, a huge section of middle powers is emerging and those powers will play an important role. India will be one of those powers.' He said that there are certain entities which have become bigger than sovereign nations. 'Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have become a threat to sovereign nations,' he said.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
India must shun lethargy to take global leadership role: Ram Madhav
BJP senior leader and author Ram Madhav on Sunday emphasised the need for India to assert its role in the new world order by shunning its lethargic approach to global issues. Participating in a discussion after launching his book 'The New World: 21st Century Global Order and India' at a hotel here on Sunday, he observed that India had failed to play a significant role in the world order since its independence in 1947. 'There is confusion all around, and India must understand where the world is going,' he said and stressed that becoming a 'Vishwa Guru' requires more than just romantic notions to play a role in the global order. Finding fault with the nation's lethargic attitude towards the changes, instead of craving for a seat in the UNSC, Mr. Madhav suggested that India should focus on building regional multilateralism in its extended neighbourhood in the Indian Ocean, given the failure of global agencies like the UN. He mentioned that he had made these suggestions in his book, which explores the rise and fall of great powers and the international orders they create. The book addresses pressing concerns, including the rise of China, the decline of global multilateralism, the impact of Artificial Intelligence and the challenges posed by demographics and climate change. The discussion was organised by the Forum for Nationalist Thinkers, Hyderabad, in association with BEST Innovation University. Former Ambassador to Russia Venkatesh Varma, Krishnadeva Rao, Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR, Rupa Vasudevan, Vice-Chancellor of BEST Innovation University, and senior journalist Uma Sudhir participated in the discussion.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Ram Madhav's new book to be launched today
Forum for Nationalist Thinkers, Hyderabad, in association with BEST Innovation University, is organising the book launch of BJP national general secretary Ram Madhav's The New World: 21st Century Global Order and India on Sunday at Hotel Taj Krishna here. The book makes a nuanced analysis of the various developments that have impacted the world order in the 21st century vis-à-vis India and how India has diligently created a space for itself as an indispensable entity in the rapidly changing world order. It discusses the possibilities for India in the days to come. Former Ambassador to Russia, Venkatesh Varma, IFS (Retd.) will be the chief guest for the function. Prof. Krishna Deva Rao, Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR, and Dr. Rupa Vasudevan, Vice-Chancellor of BEST Innovation University, will be the guests of honour. Senior Journalist Uma Sudhir will have a conversation with the author, Shri Ram Madhav, on the book. Further details can be had by contacting D. Veera Babu at 9848559297 and Ch. Krishna Reddy at 9182552078.
The Wire
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Preparing for a Post-Modi Era? Why Ram Madhav's Book Matters
Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader Ram Madhav's latest book, The New World: 21st Century Global Order and India, can be read on three levels. The first part tells the story of the world since the dawn of time in a relatively descriptive manner, so I will not refer to it much in this review. In the second part, devoted to India, Madhav presents his worldview in a very interesting way. He also expresses reservations about India's chances of becoming a great nation and, implicitly, criticises government policies, while rehabilitating an important part of the Congress's legacy – a first for a Sangh Parivar leader since 2014. Hindu nationalism, its enemies and its new friends Ram Madhav is now regarded as an organic intellectual of the Hindu nationalist movement, and this book provides insight into several facets of that movement. However, he never refers to its founding fathers (there is no mention of V.D. Savarkar) or its organisations. There is no mention of the RSS and its affiliates either. The aim here is to show that Hindutva is just one variant of a broader phenomenon that affects the whole world and which Madhav calls "national conservatism," echoing the National Conservatism Conference in which he participated in 2024. This book therefore contains key elements of this movement, starting with the idea that India is the source of many inventions that have enabled humanity to prosper: in ancient times (no date is specified), "led by the Hindus and the Greeks, a moral order began to take shape in the early centuries before the beginning of the Christian era" (p. xii). The author adds, in an equally vague and peremptory manner: "Around the same time, the Hindus also came forward with their Vedas, Upanishads and other classical literature, leading to the evolution of a superior social order in the East" (p. xiii). The result: "India was the largest economy in the world in the first millennium" (p. xiv). In fact, it was under the Mughals that India became one of the leaders of the world economy. But Ram Madhav rewrites history and, in line with Hindu nationalist dogma, claims that this golden age was followed by an era of decline due to the Mughals: "Colonization, first by the Mughals and other Central Asians, then by the British for over 800 years, had left the country pulverized and pauperized" (p. xiv). If India, according to Madhav, experienced such a Golden Age, it is because Hinduism cultivates an ethic of tolerance. In contrast, Christianity and Islam led humanity to its downfall because they promoted "a religion-centric world order in European lands. Both Christianity and Islam dominated every aspect of human existence, including science, art, and culture. Anything that went against the precepts of religion was violently rejected and suppressed. The domination of the world became the singular mission of the Semitic faiths, leading to wars and conquests that caused enormous human suffering' (p. xiv). These sentences are very interesting because of the mistrust of religion they express: for Hindu nationalists, who readily claim to be Hindus and oppose secularism, Hindus are not defined by religious beliefs but by their ethnicity, so that they form a people descended from the first humans, the Aryans. The analogy with Zionism is all the clearer here, since not only are Jews a people descended from the tribes of Israel, but they also appeared on sacred land, a notion that is equally omnipresent in Hindutva, where Bharat forms what Savarkar calls a " punyabhoomi," a sacred territory. The ancient splendour of India fuels Ram Madhav's civilisational narrative, according to which his country can now reconnect with its past glory and regain international greatness beyond even the areas it once dominated: "The extended neighbourhood offers India a great opportunity because of its millennia-long historical and civilisational ties with the subcontinent. Unlike China, India enjoys enormous goodwill in this extended region, from ASEAN to Africa to the South Pacific, due to the ancient cultural connection, which it should be able to turn into a diplomatic advantage" (p. xxxviii). In fact, the author's main objective is to restore India's status as a great power and even its "greatness" (p. 311). To achieve this, the "soft power" on which Nehru relied – described as "romantic" and "idealistic" – will not be enough: "It is time for India to make strenuous efforts to build 'Brand Bharat'—a benign global influence. The era of soft power is passé, and the time has come for 'smart power' to create a unique brand identity for nations" (p. xxxviii). This quest for power requires closer ties with "like-minded countries" and the development of industrial, military, and scientific capabilities. India's potential friends are defined in negative terms: they are primarily political forces that share the same enemies as Hindu nationalists. These adversaries form a heterogeneous group – called the "deep state" (p. 158) – ranging from "liberals" to "leftists," "cultural Marxists," "Islamists," and "woke" individuals, who are mainly found among NGOs. Of all these, Soros is the most feared. Madhav's discourse is primarily defensive: India must resist destabilisation efforts on all fronts. This has resulted in a whole repertoire of victimisation that national-populists are currently cultivating around the world: "In India, Soros is accused of supporting and sponsoring anti-Modi government campaigns such as the 2020–21 farmers' uprising and a recent attack on Indian business tycoon Gautam Adani by a lesser-known outfit called Hindenburg Research. In fact, the farmers' agitation launched against the Modi government's agricultural policies was the latest example of India's brush with global NGOs (GNGOs). The Indian government suspected the role of some GNGOs in supporting and sponsoring this agitation. 'Toolkit' as a disruptive concept became popular during this agitation with the likes of Greta Thunberg jumping in. Thunberg inadvertently put a toolkit in the public domain before hastily withdrawing it. The toolkit, allegedly created by a Canada-based organisation called the Poetic Justice Foundation (PJF) with links to separatist groups such as the Khalistanis, not only contained seditious material but also highlighted the modus operandi of some of the GNGOs' (p. 140). This conspiracy theory may raise a smile, but it lies at the heart of the nationalist-conservative phenomenon, whose proponents seek to thwart plans that would ruin the social order (and therefore the domination of the traditional elites) and destroy morality by destroying the family (hence their opposition to homosexuality, for example). What they fear is seeing their civilisation destabilised from outside. The words "chaos" and "anarchy" appear repeatedly in Madhav's writing. To resist, he wants to align himself with Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, Giorgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen, and others. Madhav's social conservatism goes beyond defending the family to encompass the caste system, which he sees as just one expression of India's diversity: "India's demographic diversity in terms of its castes, languages, and religions adds great color and celebration to it" (p. 265). How, moreover, does Madhav measure respect for religious diversity in India, when Muslims are victims of discrimination, segregation, and violence on a daily basis? He bases it on demographic growth – estimated at 7.81% in a highly controversial Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study – because surely an oppressed community cannot have many children: "In India's context, a 7.81 percent increase in the populations of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and Buddhists (Parsis and Jains saw a decline) indicated that contrary to propaganda, especially in the Western media, minorities enjoy relative comfort in the country" (p. 281). Any social science student knows that the primary explanatory variable for female fertility is lack of education, hence the correlation between socio-educational development and population growth. Madhav's national conservatism involves a degree of authoritarianism that only appears in the epilogue, but which is particularly radical. For him, India must transition to "Dharmocracy," which he refers to as "democracy, the Bharat way" (p. 320). Madhav defines Dharma here as an "ethical-spiritual order" and "the only supreme authority," whose guardians are the Rajgurus (the Brahmins who guide rulers in the Hindu tradition). In Dharmocracy, as in any theocracy, those who exercise power are therefore not accountable to the people (the demos) but to the Dharma, represented by priests. For Madhav, Modi led India down this path in 2023 when he installed in the new parliament the sacred sceptre called sengol, which was used by the Rajguru of the Chola dynasty in southern India in medieval times. Why India is not necessarily on the rise If, for Madhav, India must therefore return to a type of authoritarian regime in order to be stronger, at the same time, by combining the old with the new, it must become a modern power, and it is above all to this project that the second part of his book is devoted, the tone of which is surprisingly measured, even pessimistic. Admittedly, Modi's India has broken with Nehru's "romantic globalism," but what has it achieved in ten years? In the second part, the book oscillates between pretension and thinly veiled criticism. This gives rise to recurring contradictions: on the one hand, Madhav condemns the policies implemented by the Congress Party, while on the other, he constantly cites the achievements of Nehru and his descendants, whether in the IITs or in regional diplomacy. This last example deserves closer examination. First, Madhav admits that" "Prime Minister Nehru played an important role in the transition of power in Nepal from the Ranas to a constitutional monarchy under King Tribhuvan Bir Bikram Shah Dev" (p. 288). The same is true of Sri Lanka: 'With Sri Lanka, too, India's relations began on a friendly and cordial note after the former's independence from the British in February 1948. The post-Independence Sri Lankan leadership, under S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, joined the NAM and supported India on issues ranging from domestic ones like the accession of Goa, Diu and Daman, to international ones like the Suez crisis. Nehru's death in 1964 was also declared a public holiday in Sri Lanka in his honour" (p. 288). Madhav then reviews the rest of South Asia and acknowledges the excellence of Nehru's diplomacy and that of his successors: 'India's ties with Myanmar also began on a friendly and cordial note after Independence. Prime Minister Nehru enjoyed a good personal rapport with U Nu, the Burmese prime minister. Both countries signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1951. "Bangladesh owed its birth to India when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi decided to send the Indian Army to help the Mukti Bahini rebels secure freedom from Pakistan in the final phase of the war in 1971 (p. 289). Beyond the Nehru-Gandhi family, other Congress leaders stand out, such as Narasimha Rao: 'India's romance with the Indian Ocean began in 1992 when PM Narasimha Rao enunciated what became famous as the Look East policy' (p. 299). Even Manmohan Singh, so disparaged by Narendra Modi, receives praise from Ram Madhav: "In 2008, the UPA government led by PM Dr. Manmohan Singh promoted the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS), the first initiative of its kind to bring together the navies of the IOR. A decade later, IONS boasted of the participation of 35 navies from the region in its activities" (p. 301). It is on this interesting question of neighbourly relations that Ram Madhav contradicts himself most and in the most instructive way: on the one hand, he gets carried away, caught up in his desire for power for India; on the other, ceasing to believe his own lies, he opens his eyes to reality in a flash of lucidity. See for yourself. On the one hand, he writes: 'India has already emerged as a regional leader by building architectures such as SAARC and BIMSTEC with varying degrees of success. In the Indian Ocean Region, India commands enormous respect due to its longstanding cultural and civilizational ties with many countries. Once a leader in the NAM, it now champions the cause of the Global South, attracting substantial traction in Asia and Africa' (p. 113-114). On the other hand, ceasing to mistake his desires for reality, he admits: 'Both SAARC and BIMSTEC failed to promote coherent regionalism like the ones witnessed among CIS countries, ASEAN, or even the EU. SAARC became a victim of Indo-Pak rivalry, and has remained dysfunctional for a decade now. The last summit-level meeting of the SAARC countries took place in Kathmandu in November 2014. Since then, the regional body has remained dormant. On the other hand, although India attached strategic importance to the BIMSTEC arrangement, it didn't acquire the required momentum either' (p. 287). Does this mean that Modi's 'neighbourhood first' policy has failed? But regional issues are not the only area where criticism of the Modi government is evident. When he seeks to highlight Modi's achievements, he finds nothing but symbols, or even political marketing: "PM Modi understands the importance of India presenting itself [my emphasis] to global powers as a regional leader – one that enjoys the goodwill and support of its neighbours." Worse still, neutralism – which is denounced when equated with Nehru's non-alignment – becomes a paradoxical virtue, even in the case of the war in Gaza (during which India systematically abstained at the UN, even when it came to calling for a ceasefire). Incomprehensibly, Madhav describes this policy as "strategic autonomy," a term introduced into the lexicon of international relations by De Gaulle to refer to the absence of military dependence on foreign powers: "The strategic autonomy doctrine is evident in India's response to conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. In both conflicts, the Indian leadership refused to take sides and maintained proactive neutrality, engaging with all sides of the conflict. India was among the 32 other member countries of the UN Security Council, including China, that abstained from voting when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in February 2023 demanding that Russia should 'immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine" (p. 258). But the most important point lies elsewhere: in Madhav's skepticism when it comes to economic, scientific, and military development, given that, as he repeatedly states, a nation's power can only be based on strong industry and cutting-edge technology. In this regard, everything remains to be done, and the author regrets that so little has been accomplished. The word "unfortunately" appears more than 10 times in the last 100 pages. When it comes to technological advances, the situation is critical because India: "...suffers from challenges such as a shortage of talent in quantum physics, limited funding, an infrastructure gap, and weak collaboration between industry and academia. India must approach this technological challenge with urgency and seriousness. It needs to revamp its education and research infrastructure completely. It needs to invest heavily in areas of innovation in frontier technologies. It should focus on building a strong culture of R&D and institutions that support innovation to ramp up its technological prowess. In the past, we achieved noteworthy progress in areas like nuclear fusion and space. Indian nuclear fusion research is making remarkable progress at an impressive pace" (p. 268). Madhav cites the achievements of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), which was created during the Congress era, and the first supercomputer, the CDC 6600, which appeared under Nehru. Even when the Modi government took initiatives, they appear insufficient to the author: '[Modi's] government took the important initiative of establishing the National Mission on Quantum Technologies & Applications (NM-QTA) in 2020 with a five-year budget outlay of about $1 billion. India became the seventh country to have a quantum mission. However, much needs to be done in terms of actual research and output. Capital investments have to increase manifold, and private equity also has to step in' (p. 270). The heart of the problem lies in the training of the elite: "India's education infrastructure remains lacklustre in terms of academic research and innovation rigor. India produces 1.5 million engineers every year, but what it needs is not just engineers but 'imagineers' – engineers with the power of imagination and innovation" (pp. 271-272). Madhav concludes: "Imitation is not innovation, and copying is not creativity" (p. 275). In terms of defence, Indian industry is so underperforming that, Madhav points out, the air force is still waiting for delivery of 40 Tejas fighter jets, whose development began in 1984. Madhav repeatedly compares India's delays with China's advances, which fuel his concerns. The Indian navy also appears to be in a poor state with its two aircraft carriers and 16 submarines. It needs to acquire 200 additional ships and 24 submarines. As Madhav states: "Achieving that capability is critical to India's future global role" (p. 310). The social consequences of India's economic weakness, and in particular the difficulties faced by its industry (once again in competition with China), do not escape the author's keen insight. He admits that "India faces the challenge of unemployment and underemployment" (p. 277), once again lamenting the mediocrity of education in a context of rapid population growth: "India's challenge is its low-skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labor workforce. In the age of frontier technologies, a population boom without adequate skilling infrastructure will be a recipe for disaster" (p. 277). Under these conditions, India's demographic dividend is nothing more than a pipe dream. Conclusion: "India needs to tackle this demographic challenge diligently" (p. 282). At this stage, one is tempted to ask: what is the government doing about this? The question is all the more pressing given that Madhav seems to find answers by quoting another Congress leader, Lal Bahadur Shastri: "Shastri said the following in his first Independence Day speech in 1964 that stirred the conscience of the entire nation: ""We can win respect in the world only if we are strong internally and can banish poverty and unemployment from our country. Above all, we need national unity. Communal, provincial, and linguistic conflicts weaken the country""(p. 317). Should we conclude that, for Madhav, the way in which the Modi government has played the identity polarisation card needs to be revisited? Overall, while Madhav believes that 'the new Indian leadership is looking towards building a nation capable of becoming an important player on the global stage' (p. 315), for the moment, after more than ten years, the results are mixed at best. This criticism, coming from one of the most prominent Hindu nationalist leaders, is unprecedented. But given his responsibilities, it could even be seen as self-criticism. How far can this shift go? Should we expect a change of course, with the organisation of a "caste census" as the first sign, or is this initiative purely tactical? Only time will tell, but if it turns out that in Modi's India, "the more things change, the more they stay the same," Madhav's book may be paving the way for the post-Modi era – a highly anticipated milestone for the RSS. Christophe Jaffrelot is Senior Research Fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, Professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King's College London, Non resident Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Chair of the British Association for South Asian Studies.
Indian Express
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Ram Madhav at Idea Exchange: ‘Any economic ideology benefitting the last man is priority. That's why India could do away with absolute poverty'
Senior BJP leader Ram Madhav on the need for revision of voter rolls, the new BJP president, the narrative on Operation Sindoor and why economic growth should be India's focus over the next two decades. The session was moderated by Deputy Associate Editor Vikas Pathak Vikas Pathak: These days, there is a controversy regarding the intensive revision of voter rolls in Bihar. The Opposition is claiming that this could end up disenfranchising many voters. What do you think about the exercise? The exercise per se is very legitimate. It's not just about Bihar. A large number of people in the country have more than one voting card because of migration within the country. At some point, we had to rationalise voters' lists. The Election Commission thought that it would probably do that exercise in Bihar but now that the matter is before the Supreme Court, which has asked some very pertinent questions about Aadhaar card and other proof, we should wait for its views on this matter. Vikas Pathak: Bihar is believed to be around 89 per cent rural and sends blue collar migrants across the country. Do you think it would be a major inconvenience for them to update their names? The Election Commission has relaxed the conditionalities for the so-called registration. In any case, once the matter is sub-judice, everything depends on what view the Supreme Court takes. However, I don't think the Election Commission's effort was to disenfranchise legitimate voters. In any case, what we call as universal adult franchise, a fundamental right, had been accepted by us in 1929. It wasn't something that our Constitution gave us for the first time. Of course, in the Constitution we made it clear that it would be an adult franchise. So every adult, irrespective of any other status, should have the right to be a legitimate voter. Unfortunately, in our country elections don't take place at the same time. If we have one nation, one election, that problem can probably be addressed even if somebody has multiple ID cards. But in the current scenario, where every six months there is an election somewhere, it's probably not a bad idea to rationalise the process once and for all. Vikas Pathak: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a general perception that capitalism would become a hegemonic world ideology. How do you see capitalism under US President Donald Trump? Given this level of protectionism, the trade and tariff war can go anywhere… Capitalism as an economic ideology has undergone many transformations in the last 70 years. If anybody was familiar with the capitalism debate during the 1940s, they would have heard the name of a very important scholar called Karl Polanyi. He wrote that regional and national capitalism was also a form of capitalism at a time when we were building the first multilateral economic institutions like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank. It's another matter that those who built those institutions did not agree with him and they thought they would create a global level capitalist idea-driven financial institution. But by the 1960s, the US agreed that capitalism should also have a welfare component. That's when welfare capitalism came into existence. Welfarism is essentially a very liberal idea; you can say a communist idea. But it had to be incorporated for capitalism to survive. So capitalism has passed through many phases. Today, what Polanyi said is probably returning. National capitalism, regional capitalism will come back. On electoral roll revision | There is a problem of multiple voter cards. Unfortunately, in our country elections don't take place at the same time. If we have one nation, one election, that problem can probably be addressed Last year, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Geneva came out with a very interesting paper titled 'Stakeholder capitalism.' What it means is that the priority of an economic entity will not just be to get maximum profit for its shareholders but for those people and groups who are influenced and affected by its stakeholders. What does it mean? Mahatma Gandhi said long, long ago that our economic model should be based on Dharma Kartrutva or trusteeship, meaning that your economic activity should benefit the larger society, not just you, your family or your shareholders. But then, we had discarded it as a very obscurantist idea. The WEF is saying the same thing. Remember, today's challenges require multiple solutions and some of the solutions can come from India. Generally, countries are turning inward. And let me caution that in the coming years and decades, there will be a lot of restrictions and embargoes. That's because capitalism and national interest are both getting mixed with each other. So if somebody is selling you a military aircraft, they will insist that you buy all the weapons that you can use with it. You can't fix any other weapon to that military aircraft. We have to be prepared for that kind of nationalism mixed with capitalism. Liz Mathew: Since you mentioned India's challenges in the new world order, what are the challenges India is facing in its diplomatic outreach in the neighbourhood after Sindoor ? Operation Sindoor teaches us many, many lessons, one of which is the nature of this changed world. We went to many countries in the world and tried to expose the terror underbelly of Pakistan, which is actively supported by the State and the military establishment there. But Pakistan was elected as a chair from the Asian region with the support of the UN Security Council's non-permanent members, securing 182 votes out of 193. People may be very sympathetic to us and they know that terrorism emanating from our neighbourhood is causing so much havoc in India. But when it comes to deciding about a global issue, the priorities are different. We are entering a world driven by national interests. So, one important message is to adhere to our national interest. I am mentioning this because there are enough people still saying that India is useless unless it sides with America. Yes, there is an argument that India should take sides. But number one, in the last 75 years, we have never taken sides in any conflict. We have never joined any bloc. Second, you can't hold up the tail of a tiger, knowing that once you leave it, it will swallow you. So you want India to catch the tiger so that you can escape. The whole idea is to drag India into these kinds of conflicts. India should strictly go by its national interest. That's why we follow the strategic autonomy formula which our Prime Minister repeatedly highlights. It's also partly because we are active in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) group. We are still standing on our own feet when it comes to the QUAD alliance, where we are the only country saying that it is not just about free and open Indo-Pacific, but free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific (FOIIP). Now, India has to stand on its own ground and pursue this policy of strategic autonomy very vigorously. That is the important message from Operation Sindoor or any other conflict. Liz Mathew: Could you throw some light on the current relationship between the RSS and the BJP? What role does the RSS play when it comes to crucial decisions like electing a party president? Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself is RSS. So are Amit Shah and JP Nadda. There is no other influence of RSS in the BJP. On a more serious note, the process of choosing the BJP's national president is on. The party leadership has discussed a few names. Hopefully, the new president will be elected and he or she will take charge soon. Although I'm not an RSS functionary today, I can say with authority that RSS is not a pressurising force or an organisation that causes any stalemate. It plays the role of a facilitator if necessary. RSS is not just an organisation; it's like a family. Each understands the other, so there is no separate criteria that RSS stipulates for president. The criteria are well-known: The person has to be a good organiser, somebody who can take everybody along and present a new face of the party before the people for the 2029 election. Whoever gets chosen will be a very competent leader. And the BJP doesn't have any shortage of such competent leaders by the way; that's why it is taking so long. Manoj CG: Speaking about senior RSS leader Moropant Pingale, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat recently recounted a moment from a meeting where Pingale had turned 75 and had remarked that his felicitation marked that his 'time was up.' The remark was interpreted differently. Was there a subtle message in that remark? The RSS is a very reticent organisation. If it was supposed to be a 'subtle' message, it would never be said in a public programme. Any message to be conveyed would be conveyed through appropriate forums. What he said at Nagpur was in the context of reminiscing about Pingale. I also worked with him for some time, a wonderful leader. Bhagwatji was only remembering those jovial moments from the event. As for leaders stepping down, they are mature and will take an appropriate decision. But there is no such age limit or any clause as far as my knowledge goes. Jatin Anand: There was a meeting between the sarsanghchalak and the PM that happened after Operation Sindoor. Could you tell us anything about what was discussed? Until 2021, they used to meet regularly, once a year at least. But between 2021 and 2024, the meetings did not happen. Before that they were together on the dais at the inauguration of the Ram temple. On new BJP president | The process of choosing the BJP's national president is on. The leadership has discussed a few names. Hopefully, the new president will be elected and he or she will take charge soon What actually transpired only those two people can tell. But I know this much that there was definitely some discussion about the Pahalgam incident and how India was planning to respond to it. The sarsanghchalak would have also briefed the Prime Minister about plans for the RSS centenary in October. Deeptiman Tiwary: One argument being given for a protectionist version of capitalism is the colossal failure of capitalism to take care of the bottom of the pyramid. At a time when the government is calling for India to become a developed nation by 2047, is there going to be an economic model that will take care of the poor? Classical capitalism by Adam Smith and others is long dead. We have modified versions of capitalism in so-called capitalist countries, like Sweden or Denmark, where the state's welfare component in public expenditure is 60 per cent. You might as well call it socialism or communism. Talking specifically about India, at least this government is very clear that Antyodaya, our economic ideology, which benefits the last man, should be the priority for any economic model or programme that we develop. That's the reason why India has been able to completely do away with absolute poverty. The World Bank says that India no longer has any population living in extreme poverty. A few days ago, I saw a report — maybe one can have views on these reports — which said that India is the fourth most equitable country in the world. So we are doing well in that aspect, in any case that's our commitment. I give one more example, call it my assumption. India's massive youth population today is facing an important challenge of finding jobs. But, there are no street riots, the reason being, there is sufficient economic activity. That is the reason why, despite the status of employment, there is no great poverty, stress or suffering at the grassroots. This government is conscious of its responsibility of ensuring that citizens at the grassroots level have a better life than what they were used to. Absolute equality is not possible in any society. But the gap should be minimised, and that is the commitment of this government. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: Post-Operation Sindoor, Pakistan seems to have had an edge in the narrative and made an impression on several people outside India. How do you look at this? Could we have managed the post-conflict information dissemination better? We have handled both – Operation Sindoor on the ground as well as the post-operation narrative – quite effectively. Maybe because no country openly came out (except two countries) and said Pakistan is the culprit, we are saying we have not succeeded in the war of narratives. That is because we have that expectation that dozens of countries would stand up and say that Pakistan is the villain, Pakistan is the culprit. But to say that Pakistan has gained in popularity is far from reality. I travelled after Operation Sindoor to at least eight countries. Everybody – foreign ministers, ministers – knows the potential of the Pakistan administration for creating trouble or promoting terror. Their stock has not gone up. Another lesson that we should learn is that in the new world, wars are going to be very different. In this era, you can't finally decide who is the victor and who is the vanquished. That's exactly what Pakistan tried to do. In spite of being badly beaten by India, badly suffering, it also claimed that it stood up to India. Nobody really believes that in the outside world. On new capitalism | Welfarism is essentially a very liberal idea; you can say a communist idea. But it had to be incorporated for capitalism to survive. National capitalism, regional capitalism will come back Pakistan-exported terrorism is not new in India. We have had worst instances like the Parliament and Mumbai attacks. How many countries really stood up and said Pakistan should be blamed? They blamed terror organisations, they blamed those individuals. There is a way countries respond because of various geopolitical or geo-strategic situations in which they operate. But that doesn't mean they are not standing with us. Every country stood by us on terrorism and India being the victim time and again. And they all believed that it was happening from across the border. That's the reason why the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) went after Pakistan for years. Pakistan manages to escape sanctions, thanks to its friends, but that doesn't mean people are giving it a clean chit. In that sense, our outreach efforts have definitely helped us. Vikas Pathak: In your book, you have talked about the need for India to focus only on economic growth in the next 20 years. At the same time, we have identity politics playing out everywhere. Do you think any economic development agenda is tenable in this scenario? I actually compare India with what happened in China in the 1980s and 90s under its leader Deng Xiaoping and his successors. Those 20 years were very pragmatic for China. In fact, Deng went to the extent of telling his Communist Party that 'I don't care about the colour of the cat as long as it is catching the mice.' They asked him about contracts to Western companies, he said his focus was not on communist ideology, just economic growth. Issues will keep cropping up in India because we are a diverse society but leadership has to now seriously focus on the economy for at least the next 10 to 15 years. Unless India becomes a 10 trillion dollar economy, there is no way we can play any big role in the world. Even with $10 trillion, our per capita will be around $6,500, which is half of that of China today. By the time we reach $10,000, they will go somewhere else. The leadership's focus has to be on economic growth. I'm sure that is what the government is doing.
